Communication networks typically include a plurality of distinct network communication providing components, and network management components. The network communication providing components, commonly called network elements, provide information transmission services for network users, whereas the network management components manage the traffic flow, resources and accounting relating to use of the network and in particular the network elements. Examples of such networks include: LANS, WANS, and telephony networks. In many communication networks there are network management components known as operational support systems (OSSs), wherein each such OSS may be a relatively complex hardware/software configuration for performing one or more network management functions such as: network monitoring, correcting network performance problems, allocating network resources and billing for network services. At least in telephony networks, many such operational support systems were developed (a) prior to (and therefore without the assistance of) recent network engineering techniques, architectures and standards, and (b) incrementally adapted in substantially a piecemeal fashion with few design considerations related to the automation and management of the network as a wholes In fact, OSSs satisfying (a) and (b) are so numerous and their maintenance difficulties are so well known that the common term of art, "legacy systems," has been coined to denote them. In particular, the legacy systems have been an impediment to the introduction of network elements and/or operational supports systems having hardware/software architectures that could provide more robust and cost effective network operation. For instance, since the legacy systems have few common architectural features, the utilization of advances in: network management systems, network system engineering, and enhanced network element features progressively becomes a more complex and difficult task, particularly, as these advances provide new capabilities utilized most effectively with architectures increasingly at odds with the legacy systems. Further, since the legacy systems communicate with network elements using a plurality of nonstandard and/or licensed communication protocols, the combination of stopgap maintenance adaptations together with these nonstandard communication protocols have resulted in a complex web of communication channels between operational support systems, and between network elements and operational support systems. In particular, many-to-many relationships exist wherein many network elements and/or OSSs directly supply information to a plurality of other OSSs and, conversely, many network elements and OSSs directly receive information from a plurality of network elements and/or OSSS. Accordingly, this complexity in the network management information flow tends to make the network management ill-conditioned; that is, seemingly small changes to network operational components may have substantial unintended consequences. Moreover, this complexity also reduces the effectiveness of the network in being able to adapt to new market pressures, new technologies and changing management directives.
Note that the above drawbacks of the legacy systems have become progressively worse with the new network architectures and standards which have been developed since 1985. In particular, the following network standardization and architectural specifications provide a direction for future communication networks in which the legacy systems and their associated network elements cannot easily partake:
(1.1) International Telecommunication Union-Telecommunication (ITU-T) Telecommunications Management Network (TMN) Recommendation M.3000 Series; PA1 (1.2) International Telecommunication Union-Telecommunication (ITU-T) Recommendation X.700 Series; PA1 (1.3) OMNIPoint 1 and 2 specifications from the Network Management Forum August 1992; PA1 (1.4) International Standardization Profiles (ISPs) from the International Standards Organization (ISO) from the following: Series and Specifications ISO9595-X, ISO9596-X, ISO10165-X, ISO10733 and ISO10164-X; and PA1 (1.5) International Electro Technical Commission specifications (IEC) (i.e., ISO standard, ISO/IEC7498, also known as Recommendation X.200) from ISO/IEC Copyright Office, Case Postale 56, SH-1211, Geneve, Switzerland. PA1 (2.1) distributed object oriented software architectures; PA1 (2.2) manager-agent architectures; PA1 (2.3) client-server architectures; and PA1 (2.4) distributed computing environments. PA1 (3.1) do not use the technological enhancements of the newer network elements and instead provide and/or maintain communication channels with the legacy systems through the current entanglement of such channels; PA1 (3.2) develop new operational support systems for the newer network elements and use both the new operational support systems and the legacy systems independently and concurrently until all old network elements can be cost effectively retired; or PA1 (3.3) provide a new network management architecture for certain network elements and/or operational support systems independent of the legacy systems and "flash cut" (i.e., abruptly replace) a substantial portion of the legacy system with the new network architecture. PA1 (4.1) the control signals used for initializing, maintaining and terminating a communication; PA1 (4.2) the form and timing of the control signals for the communication; PA1 (4.3) the representation (e.g., data structures) of the information communicated; PA1 (4.4) the form and timing of the information communicated (e.g., the size of information packets, the timing of such packets and the frequency of communication); PA1 (4.5) in some cases, the timing for obtaining (sampling) data to be communicated; and PA1 (4.6) a set of rules and formats (semantic and syntactic) that determine the communication behavior of the components communicating using the protocol. PA1 (5.1) providing a bypass data path as an alternate channel wherein: PA1 (5.2) deactivating the target data channel and using the bypass data path exclusively; PA1 (5.3) repeating the steps (5.1) and (5.2) with each data channel connected to the second operational component that is not a bypass data path; PA1 (5.4) supplying one or more third network operational components that originally received data from the second operational component with data from the data model derived from data on the bypass data path(s) so that the third operational components are able to continue to perform any desirable network services; PA1 (5.5) providing a fourth (more advanced) OSS to take over any desirable network management services still provided by the second operational component, wherein the fourth OSS communicates with other operational components via the network data model; and PA1 (5.6) deactivating the second operational component.
As an aside, note that the above publications and all ISO standards and ISO/IEC Joint Standards (including those published also as ITU-T Recommendations are available from the American National Standards Institute, 11 West 42nd Street, New York, N.Y. 10036.
Additionally, and in conjunction with the above-mentioned publications, there are software architectures that have been recently developed which are also problematic for the legacy systems. In particular, the following software architectures are problematic for the legacy systems:
Moreover, heretofore there has been no known method for cost effectively implementing such new technologies in a uniform and consistent manner wherein there is a gradual migration to these new technologies within the framework of a master architectural plan for an entire network. Thus, in particular, since vendors supplying network elements have adopted many of these new standards and architectures, network providers have been left with essentially three options regarding advanced network elements:
Since none of the above options has proven to be viable for large network service providers, it would be advantageous for network providers to have a straightforward method and/or system for migrating to new network technologies cost effectively. In particular, it would be advantageous to systematically transform a telephony or telecommunications network having legacy systems as described above into the more automated, efficient and standardized networks specified in the above-mentioned specifications (1.1)-(1.5) without prematurely and wholesalely retiring substantial portions of the network.